And what's worse, constitutional carry is just going to come up again next session and the session after that, and will continue to suck all the air out of the room so that nothing else gets passed.
As disappointed that I am that HB560 never even got a shot, I'm even more disappointed - upset, really - that there was no apparent attempt to clean up the language regarding posting on government owned or leased property. I don't know if that was part of HB560 or not, but it was important enough to warrant its own separate bill regardless.
Search found 5 matches
Return to “HB1911 Com Substitute”
- Thu May 11, 2017 8:49 am
- Forum: 2017 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: HB1911 Com Substitute
- Replies: 286
- Views: 84369
- Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:47 am
- Forum: 2017 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: HB1911 Com Substitute
- Replies: 286
- Views: 84369
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
I know you probably can't answer but I'm going to ask anyway - why wasn't it?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, HB560 most certainly should have been the flagship Bill!
Chas.
- Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:59 am
- Forum: 2017 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: HB1911 Com Substitute
- Replies: 286
- Views: 84369
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
I hear you. I haven't followed the legislative stuff as closely this session as I usually do but this whole CC issue has been confusing to me. I had pretty much assumed that after the knock-down drag-out it took to get OC last time, there wouldn't be any political capital left for another high-profile fight, and so an HB560 type bill could quietly slip in under the radar. I guess since several other states have adopted CC in the interim, we decided the time was right? I don't know, but I trust our political folks who know what to push and when and this is where we are right now. I do wish there would have been some kind of compromise package presented that would get some other things (like closing the government building loophole), but we'll see.ralewis wrote:Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.
And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.
Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.
What else could possibly be "on deck" if we get constitutional carry? We already knocked out Open Carry and Campus Carry - I can't think of any other elephants in the room.
- Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:25 am
- Forum: 2017 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: HB1911 Com Substitute
- Replies: 286
- Views: 84369
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
I agree for the most part but respectfully request you reconsider that last sentence. For whatever reason, it seems that the "powers that be" (for lack of a better term) have decided to put most of the eggs in the constitutional carry basket this sesson. While I think CC is important, I and I suspect many others here don't think it should be our top priority right now - HB 560 should. But at this point, it seems to me that the train has left the station and if we don't get CC, not only are we going to have a very disappointing session, but we'll be dealing with CC again next session, and the session after that, etc. until it passes. And it will continue to suck all the air out of the room, just like OC did until it finally passed.ralewis wrote:My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.
We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.
I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.
At this point, I say let's just get it done and maybe finally hopefully we can clear the deck for a HB560 next time.
- Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:14 am
- Forum: 2017 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: HB1911 Com Substitute
- Replies: 286
- Views: 84369
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute and HB560
It's already borderline idiotically complicated, but yeah, this would push it over the top. I'd like to see some grand bargain where we eliminate 30.06/30.07 in exchange for a gunbuster sign not having the force of law on those with an LTC.Ruark wrote:Sheesh. So if a business had a 30.07 sign, but no gunbuster sign, and I wanted to go in carrying openly, I could toss my LTC into the glove box before I went into the store. Then I'd be a legal unlicensed carrier.......????
This is all going to be idiotically complicated. You won't find 1 business owner in 100,000 that will have a correct understanding of everything.
Having said that, I'm at the point where I desperately hope constitutional carry passes this session because it seems we've again sacrificed some mighty good legislation (i.e. HB560) to get it done, just like we did in 2015 to get open carry. If constitutional carry fails... oh man, I don't want to think about it.